Forum:Overhaul?

Forums: Index > Help desk > Overhaul?

I want to:

1. do the releases changes that are on the release talk page, as no-one has replied to me with a reason to the contrary, or taken any action to fix the page. (that is, categorise all current releases and then delete the releases pages and start over with the new 'releases' page referring to 'product lines' rather than geographical sorting).
2. remove the 'overview' sections -or rewrite them, whichever is easier and appropriate.

If no-one post here with a reason to the contrary, I'll start this week. Slax01 10:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing to do? I remember being slightly confused after reading your last post on the model releases forum.... But I thought we'd basically reached a conclusion.... I'd say that rewriting the overview sections is definitely a good idea though. --Azimuth727 03:57, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I agree to an overhaul, just one thing I found today: List_of_Zoids_Releases and Zoids_Model_Releases. One comes from the main page, the other from the Zoids page. Both seem to attempt to cover the same info. Both are totally different. I only noticed this by clicking on the main page and thinking "why are there only 2 posts on the talk page"... I'm not sure if this is common knowledge, but there are dozens of pages like this scattered all over the place. I don't think deleting everything is the way to go, but we at very least need to delete/consolidate some of it. Sylvanelite 08:53, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Releases page, I want to:

• make categories with the info from the current releases page
• delete the current releases pages, but keep links to the categories, for instance in a timeline
• make a new releases page based on product lines, rather than geographical releases of products. (ie: a page on fuzor zoids, genesis zoids, custom parts, action figures etc. Not a page on the fuzors US, fuzors AU, fuzors JAP releases.)

Reasons have been provided at length.

Also, as per what Sylvan has said, I may try and make a site map. That was the original intention behind the image map on the main page. I never completed it due to never being able to navigate the releases pages.

Ideally you should start at the top and work down- this currently isn't the case. Best example is probably the Zoids page. Realistically, we could delete that page and simply shift the info over to the main page. I would have done so if the wiki skin change hadn't screwed everything up. Slax01 09:10, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

It's become obvious to me that we need to delete some pages. But we also need to make sure no information is lost in the process. There needs to be some kind of plan. There is enough difference between regional releases that it merits a mention. But at the same time, the information is inconsistent enough that it's hard to consolidate. One thing that I think we need to do is remove timing information from the various release pages. For example, nearly half of the Mechabonica article is about its relation to OAR, OER, Robo Strux, and OJR. This information is repeated almost word-for-word on every article that is even remotely related to Mechabonica (which there are a lot). IMO, This information needs structure to prevent so much repetition. (it doesn't help that the OAR and Mechabonica share the same images either). Some example solutions:

• Remove the duplicated information from the pages, and just have it in the "list of pages"
• Add a template (like the information box on the Zoids pages) which has information like "previous, next, inherited, etc"
• Add a table to replace the lists (like the Zoids or video games tables)
• Add headings to separate information about the Zoids in the release, the timing of the release, the reception, cancellation, and inheritance from other releases
• some combination of the above.

From what I've seen of the anime and model pages, tempates and headings seem to be the way to go. Most of the existing release pages are "walls of text". This massively hurts usability, but also means these pages are almost never edited. We need to break up walls of text into small, relevant, manageable, chunks. Removing duplicated and redundant information will come for "free" if we do this. (basing this on the huge number of "Van" pages which used to litter the wiki) Sylvanelite 09:05, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the overhaul (as I have likely caused around 99.9% of all problems on the Wiki). One thing I would like to add is,

• remove anything fanon related

As said, having caused many of the problems on the wiki, there are many fanon-based material laying around, mainly in the character pages. The videogame character pages also have many, many issues (which is actually only half my fault, as I think I gave the creator of those articles the wrong idea). Of course, the main issue I have is how are we to verify the information in the character pages given that mostly there is either very little to none resources/citations we can use. Technically, all the character pages would be considered "fanon" as no sources were stated in the creation of them, or used in them. I have also seen many biased articles, to top that off.

(Zoids Fanatic 01:53, March 31, 2012 (UTC))

I have no issues with any of the propsed changes. When I come back from visiting colleges tomorrow, I may start to implement some of these myself. Leon35 22:58, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Action started

There being no issues raised, and no attempts to clean up the Releases page, I have started my overhaul. Further work will clean up the pages and names, to bring them into line with the new navigational structure. Content does not, as of yet, line up.

Review of the overview sections has not started yet.Slax01 09:17, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

It's still worth noting that List_of_Zoids_releases is the page linked to on the main page. So we'll need to correct that one as well. Sylvanelite 00:46, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

I'm editing the non-linked page on purpose. It's a scribble page and is taking radical changes. Once I've finished, it'll be merged and flagged for deletion appropriately. Slax01

OAR

Can anyone explain this section from the OAR page:

Though referred to as the Original American Release, the OAR was also available in Australia, the UK and mainland Europe. The only difference between the OAR released in America and the OAR released elsewhere is that the American Serpent's wheels are green instead of brown.

When I was consolidating the releases, Serpent was consistently released under the "Power Zoids" box, both in the UK and USA. So that's easy, there's no need to use OAR when talking about the serpent. But if there are no other differences in the the rest of the OAR Zoids, why use it at all?

I'm going to keep the OAR category page, but if there's nothing different between the Zoids, then I'm going to remove it from the rest of the wiki. It's just one less thing to have to maintain. (especially since it's an uncitable fan-term).

Just as a heads-up, the rest of these fan terms are also going to come under scrutiny. They seem to be massively over-used, to the point where they are harmful to the wiki. We've lost a lot of information because of it (e.g. "power zoids" is never mentioned by name in OER or OAR articles, despite being clearly printed on the Serpent and Tank boxes). If there is a suitable replacement term, seen in official media, I will use that instead. Anything that's a "sub-line" of a fan-term, will be considered a full line separate from the fan-term (to stop the fa-terms poisoning the information). Another example is the Z-builders line, which despite being official, has next to no information, and the little information that is here, is hopelessly fused with the NAR. There are many more examples like this. Sylvanelite (talk) 02:12, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any official names for these releases? While I agree with you about the use of fan made terms, even such names as "Hasbro Release" or "TOMY release" would be under fire, as those are not the real names of the lines. We need to find a way to identify the release locations of certain Zoid lines that don't have seperate brand names. After that is all said and done, I suggest we contruct one page for fan terms used in the Zoids community, which after we complete this overhaul, (one day haha) will be made.Leon35 (talk) 18:46, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

As far as official names go, there seem to be a few. For example, I see no reason to use OAR or OER instead of Power Zoids, NAR or NPR instead of Z-builders and NJR instead of BLOX.

My first step is to identify all these sub lines, and remove them from the fan-terms. For the OAR, the problem is there are no Zoids left. If the OAR article is correct, then it's the same as the OER, which means we've got two fan-terms talking about the same thing. (Location doesn't play into this, since the OAR states it was released in Australia, UK and Europe as well as North America).

The second step would be to identify what's left. Large chunks of the NJR, NAR, NPR, etc, should still be left. If they turn out to be useful, we can keep them. I agree, "TOMY release" isn't particularly useful, since almost every release was done by TOMY. Sylvanelite (talk) 00:04, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

"Power Zoids" only covers 2 Zoids; Serpent and Tank, not the rest of the OAR. And I may be wrong, but isn't the name of "Power Zoids" OER only?

OAR and OER are not the same. I am a bit confused by that sentence,

What I ment was, how can we identify "NJR: Zoids if we can no loger call them "NJR" (as an example)Leon35 (talk) 06:33, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'll address the last point first, since that's easy to answer. If NJR is useful, then I'll keep using it. But I won't use it for sub-lines, like BLOX. I'll use the name BLOX instead.

Power Zoids does only contain serpent and tank. It is called Power Zoids on both the OAR and OER boxes.

The trouble is, that the OER and OAR articles are really confusing:

The first five Zoids to be released in Europe were initially un-named, but when the line proved successful they were re-released under the names Tyrannazoid (Garius), Terrazoid (Glidoler), Spiderzoid (Gargantulus), Aquazoid (Aquadon) and Protozoid (Elephantus).

the first five Zoids initially went un-named but later became Tyrannazoid (Garius), Terrazoid (Glidoler) Spiderzoid (Garantula) Aquazoid (Aquadon) and Protozoid (Elephantus).

The first is from the OER article, the latter from the OAR. They are talking about exactly the same thing. The OER seems to contain everything from the OAR, with repeated lines simply saying "they are the same". Another example is from the Giank ZRK:

The Giant ZRK was also released in Europe in 1984. This version was identical to the OAR version, and even shared packaging

The trouble is since these are fan-terms, I can't correct this information (there is no way to get citations). If the OAR and OER are different, there is nothing mentioned here about what that difference is.

If the OAR Giant ZRK was released unchanged in Europe, why is it part of the OER? Why not part of the OAR that was released in Europe? Is there any way to tell the difference between OER Zoids and European OAR Zoids with identical packaging? Sylvanelite (talk) 08:27, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

OAR and NAR (and others) sent items to different Tomy partners, Tomy Corp. branches, and distributors that's how the "Found in Australia or Mexico" occured when Australia and Mexico had no line of thier own. More recent, NPR is Korean with different plastic than NJR even though the colors, inclusives (booklets, stickers and Irvine figure) and package (exept language) are identical.

Some of the different areas had already begun a line when Americans were sent over, like OER and OJR. While OAR may have come first and packages look the same, it does not mean the re-distrbuted Zoid was the only release of the Zoid spread world wide.

Advertising and sales varied geographically by line too. You couldn't send a U.S. mail-away coupon for an OER Zoid and vice-versa. Typically there is a slight packaging difference, like a backwards weapon.

OER Gaint ZRK has differences in instruction manual (like print, company-branch location, copy right date) and later-run package has a hook-compatable top flap. My later-run OER Giant ZRK has a mold issue too, but that's likely a production error as the same part is fine for later-release Mammoth.

Sectioned Release (OAR, NAR, NPR, NJR, OJR etc.) includes the When by year or month, Where by instruction language or geographic production, Who by company branch or company partner, What With by Zoids sold or advertised together, and Buyer Spread by language(s) and currency(s) advertised-in medias for products-of the same production set-center.

*Note- the above structure is a modified from global department-store company's GIS data catagorizing-application for "Runs", "Versions", "Lines" and "Editions" of various international toys, packaged foods, books etc. but has been generalized for the Zoids Wiki.* 68.4.85.85 01:27, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Zoids, data is scarce, language is an issue and the Zoids Wiki is, for lack of a better term, chaotic when looking at some of the releases. But that doesn't mean the data has to be completely cut (or worse, erreneously catagorized) for the purpose of the Overhaul. The redundancy could be dropped, yes, but it would be plausible to continue using recognized terms from the Main Wikipedia Zoids Entry like OAR or NJR. It's just a matter of analyzing the presented data.

Non-Zoid example. There are these chocolate covered biscuts/cookies with two 'wafer' sides sandwiching chocolate-creme inside called Tim Tams. Tim Tams in Australia are packaged with energy in Joules by Arnotts Australia company. Tim Tams in Hawaii are exactly the same. Arnotts from U.S. World Market are packaged with energy in Calories by just Arnotts (no country) but the package is otherwise the same as the first two. Tim Tams from U.S. Target are packaged with energy in Calories by Pepperidge Farm in a white and purple box.

They all have different advertising (well, Hawaii Tim Tams had one local coupon) and price variation but take them out of the box and they're all the same treat that happen to melt at the same rate. But if they were to be dubbed with a 'release' Aussie-Release would be the first two Tim Tams akin to the NAR Dark Horn also found in Mexico and Australia, World Market would be World-Market or side-noted American Release like American Mammoth, and the Pepperidge Farm Tim Tams would be the American Release.

Zoid Examples. Leogator comes like the Fuzors version or in late-NJR shades of blue. The Fuzors-like one was done by the U.S. branch of Hasbro but was most often seen in the UK. Two blues, one Japanese and one Academy, were seen in in Japan and Asia respectively. So, if U.S. Hasbro is NAR by default, Fuzors-like Leogator is NAR with note where it was more often seen, Tomy blue is NJR and Academy blue is NPR despite being nearly identical to the Japan version.

The Old American lot from the U.S. branch of Tomy Corp. (then centered in Carson, California) are seperate from the other lines, particularly in advertising and print or how short the line or that OAR lacked a non-toy media 'series' to accompany it. OER's of the same moulds and colors could be distinguished by a later release date, different appearences and such.

Say the data is terribly redundant, just put the fact that X Zoid variant was released in Y Release even though it shares many characteristics with X Zoid of Z line if there's any data showing some differences in point(s) of the afore-mentioned "Release" structure.

Unless Zoids Wiki wants to be a bit like United States Kennel Club which is sorta case by case and does not fall in with international Clubs. ex: American Akitas and Akita Inus are different breeds with differnts standards except in North America. But even Wikipedia recognises the differences. Though, this Wiki isn't stable, so non-set, case-flexible rules are probably better for the unstable Zoids Wiki until it's more structurally sound. 68.4.85.85 02:16, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

I feel the above quite strongly supports my proposition (ie: to remove all current so-called "releases" pages (possibly keeping them as categories), make pages for identifiable product lines, and put all model variant info under the actual Zoid's page). This is for, among other things, due to the sheer inconsistency of what constitutes a "release". Indeed, every attempt I hear to justify the current releases pages has just dug the hole deeper. Slax01 (talk) 07:48, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Slax here. Firstly, I'll thank the anon contributor for weighing in on the discussion, posts like that are entirely the reason I brought this up in the first place. Before I go on, I'm going to clarify something I think's been lost along the line:

• I'm not deleting any information. I'm deleting duplicated information. The originals are still staying.

That's why I was quizzing about the OAR. It strongly looks duplicated. (see above quotes).

Secondly, the differences highlighted by the anon contributor, is very valuable information that is missing from the wiki, it's notably missing because we use terms like NJR. They are too general.

Rather than point this out, I'll ask some very simple questions:

• When was the Zabat released in the NAR, NER and NPR?
• Which countries was it released in?
• Which langauges were printed on the box for each release?
• Which companies handled these releases?
• What differences did the Zoid have?
• How many other Zoids shared these traits?
• When did each Zabat run end?

Try and find any of these answers on this wiki. Heck, just trying to find a Zoids that are part of the NER is nearly impossible.

No matter how much we use these terms, it won't help. They span too many different years, companies, countries, Zoids and whatnot. As the anon member pointed out, there are many differences in things like advertising. We don't have any significant information on advertising. More importantly, we don't have anywhere to put this information either. If Singapore had a marketing campaign, would this go under the NPR article? That's the only release that mentions South-East Asia. (There is no OPR). Would we have to add Australian marketing to the OAR page, and expect that to be intuitive?

If we are going to keep these terms, then we need at least the following information for each fan-term:

• list of Zoids (via categories is ok)
• list of Countries
• list of Languages
• list of Start/End dates
• list of Compaines that did distribution
• list of box art changes

Even if we don't have this information on hand, we need user-friendly placeholders that point out this information is missing. Otherwise, people won't add it to the wiki. Would anyone be opposed to this change? If not I'll do it in the next few days.

Finally, getting back to my original point. I'm still going to promote anything that's printed on a box. Anon raised a valid concern about wrongly categorising Zoids. But the categories are staying, and clearly-printed boxes are unambiguously part of a line. I've already started this with Zevle, 24-scale, Z-builders and BLOX. People have had plenty of time to inspect those edits, and I personally having a picture of the logo match the article just makes sense. Sylvanelite (talk) 08:56, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

I like the "printed on a box" idea. That makes a lot of sense as I believe a release can be characterized by similar boxart. What we refer to as NJR and NAR have the same model kits but different boxes, and are different releases. I think this holds for all the other releases.

Now, naming becomes a problem with the big releases since the boxes just label them as "Zoids". I don't have a problem with using the fan-names, although I agree they need definition.--Azimuth727 15:46, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the terms can't be defined in any other way than they currently are without being destroyed. Slax01 (talk) 21:50, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

@ Sylvanelite- Actually, there is an "OPR" through box, manufacture location date and print terms. They are early designs like SpiderZoid and Gator that were released in Taiwan and Singapore in 1983 (same time as OAR, before European) with similar boxes (slight inside box-flap change) to OER but with English instructions that say printed in Singapore and have plastic trees marked with either Singapore or Taiwan on them. Also of note, the silver plastic of "OPR" is duller than OER and the red canopy glass is slightly thinner. But aside from the two (Spider and Gator) I own, don't know what Zoids would make the "Release" much like I wouldn't know what Zoids outside of Shadow Fox, Storm Sworder and Genosaurer would be NER.

I prefer Line (like the way HMM Line has been done) more than Release (the real long ones) pages but due to how the data is so unevenly distributed, along other large issues, keeping the established albiet-fan-made terms like NAR or OJR as placeholders seems more user-freindly as you seem to suggest. "Anything on the box" could be a little risky in the translation and bootleg aspect though. What might "via Catagories" entail?

@ Slax, a specific page for each product line would be great. The current long articles are visually unapealing from my perspective, even though they have viable data and more depth than the main Wikipedia. But the last part of your suggestion sounds like it will sweep similar issues over to individual Zoid's pages and leave the Lines looking peeked. "Varient" is a convenient fan-term as is "release" no matter how well-defined they are or how they are used so both lead to a similar citation problems. There's also a massive task of checking that no data is lost at each transfer point. And perfectly good data from lesser known lines would be easy to lose if it was considered inconsistant by future editors. That's why keeping the Big Releases isn't the worst thing that could happen despite the bloated look.

Uneven data distribution is just a monster this place is not armed to slay. That's why a more flexible case-by-case plan seems better than a strict structure imo. 68.4.85.85 01:29, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

No, "variant" is quite easily defined, simply ask: is it different? If so, it's a variant. Plain and simple: list the differences. Checking no data is lost isn't really a problem since we don't have the data to start with. Slax01 (talk) 07:40, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Categories are these: http://zoids.wikia.com/wiki/Category:OAR

Importantly, the list at the bottom is automatically generated and maintained. We can edit them like normal articles. For the fan terms, we'll at very least be keeping the category pages. They will be heavily edited. Getting the pages to have a consistent look and feel is one of the main goals of the overhaul.

Translations and bootlegs are already covered by the wiki rules. That's a problem, but not one specific to this overhaul.

I'll try and add citations where I can, but it's just not possible with fan-terms. The NPR may have been based on actual manufacturer/distributer information, but as it is now, it's more based on stuff like this thread:

http://phen0type.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1315

It certainly looks like that was the coining of "NPR", but there's no way it's suitable to be used as citations. The subtle difference is that current fan-terms are based on what fans think, rather than what official sources say. The fans back up their guesses with data. It's the data we need, not the guesses and titles that were made up along the way. Sylvanelite (talk) 11:28, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

There is a possibility all of us have forgotten, that these fan terms are not actualy fan terms, but are not real names either. Let me explain...

When this Wiki was made, we essentialy copy-pasted whatw as left of the Zoids Wikipedia articles, and overtime, graualy improved them and made them our own. However, we kept terms such as OER, OJR, NJR, (etc) But why were those terms made in the 1st place? Think about it; most of the Zoids lines dont have their own names, they are simply just called "Zoids" within another region of the world. (Such is the case with the NJR, NAR, NER, NPR lines). While Wikipedia is not very credible to begin with, someone, or a group of people, must have thought of these names. But why? The answer is much simpler than we realize; these names were never ment to be fan terms, they simply got lost along the way. OJR means Original Japanese Release. The word Japanese shows the general location of the Zoids line, while the world "Original" differentiates this line between the newer line in the same location, the "New Japanese Release". When you look at it that way, that may possibly fix our problem, so long as we no longer abbreviate the terms.

However, there are still many problems that exist, and frankly, the above comment of mine is not really a solution so much as a origin of the terms we use to much nowadays for Zoids. The only easy fix we have is callling all of the NAR release "Hasbro" from now on. Other than that, I am rather stuck...Leon35 (talk) 16:18, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Leon, we know what the terms mean, and that's not the point, the point is that what constitutes the release is arbitrary. For instance, why is BLOX part of the NJR? Alternatively, why shouldn't BLOX be part of the NJR? Reasons can be made both ways- hence the term "NJR" is subjective, and hence, NJR is not appropriate for the wiki. While we could make rules to define the NJR, these rules would be arbitrary, and we'd effectively be creating our own NJR- but there is no inherent reason to even have an NJR term in the first place when we already have the term BLOX to use. Plain and simple, the term NJR adds no value to the wiki, so we should scrap it. And while everyone defending NJR-esque terms says there should be a definition of NJR, not one person has actually provided that definition. This is because it is simply not possible to come up with one, the terms are too intrinsically subjective. Slax01 (talk) 21:52, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

See, you just defined 'varient' right there, it's a fan-made term. Why can't I throw out a simple definition of 'Release' and call it a day? How about a variation of what you used: Were the selling locations different? If so it's a Release. Plain and simple list the different locations. Mind you that data is reported while terms are used. They are not one in the same nor can one be more valid with excessive backing from the other. CIS would be a living HELL if that were true lolz! *bad joke 'n pun, I know :P*68.4.85.85 02:50, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

@ Sylvanelite with all due respect, have you considered using a similar system from other wiki's of a near equiviliant genre or situation? Just for the lines causing trouble. (I realize some wiki's want to be completely unique and if you find this suggestion offensive, I am sorry.)

The "NPR" that's linked isn't the only NPR around. Academy started the "Release" in 2002 with Liger Zero (sometimes called Korea Liger Zero) and the Academy line of Zoids is still on-going, namely with Blox and Fuzors but some others too. (Think Academy has it's own Korean site, not sure if it has its older Zoids up anymore.) And then there's the Hasbro stock that went out to the Aussies, lucky dogs getting thos cool holotechs. This is why I like Lines more, they're specific.

But what do you do about the Academy Line? It's a near clone of the NJR and data is a pain to get especially with translations issues. Then where do you put the Aussie Holotechs, with Hasbro U.S., Hasbro U.K. or why not Hasbro AU? This is why Release (or run or varient or version or whatever other term that's fan-defined but consistant/convient) just seems simpler, even though I'm not a fan. 68.4.85.85 02:50, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

I see wht you mean Slax, but then, how do you propose we identify Zoids now? How do we identify the Blue Blade Liger TOMY released in Japan versus the Blue one TOMY released in the UK? Or how would we tell apart a Zoid under the same name released in different locations in different colors? We still need some kind of system of organization, don't we? The only solution I see there would be just to say under "There was a Red Blade Liger released by hasbro and a blue one released by TOMY" and that is not great either. Stilll, we seem to be heading towards the right path (I hope)Leon35 (talk) 05:28, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

@anon. Yes, I've looked at other wikis. If you have one in mind, I'll go visit it. But I haven't found one that's offers elegant solutions to the Zoids Wiki's problems.

If I can take your quote: "The "NPR" that's linked isn't the only NPR around."

May I just add, that's exactly the problem. We can't keep over-using NPR if nobody actually knows what the NPR covers.

We do mention Academy on the Zoids Toy Lines page. It lasts 8 words before falling back to the NJR, without being clear about the changes. (it says: "Most of the Zoids" ... well, how many is "most"?).

As for the Hasbro Australian Zoids. There no mention of which parts of the Hasbro line were released in Australia. They say there was some overlap. But it never goes into actually useful detail. I mean, the NAR and NPR articles may as well say:

"some Hasbro Zoid was released in some country, possibly more than once".

Anyway, I digress. I'm going to continue with the overhaul for now. I'll try consolidate exactly which information is missing, and fix it based on ease-of-use. I will do the dot-points above, because nobody has opposed it thusfar. Sylvanelite (talk) 09:07, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

@anon: I'll reply as it seems you aren't really following my line of thinking, and it is always appreciated when someone takes the time to put together a constructive reply, but in advance, I sincerely ask you take the time to consider what I'm saying for what its worth, and not just take this as an attempt to defend myself or attack you, as many people do get that impression when I write.

"See, you just defined 'varient' right there, it's a fan-made term."- with respect, I didn't define "variant", the English language defined it.

This is the dictionary definition of variant: Google dictionary (I could grab other, more reliable ones, but this is the easiest to access) "A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard: "variants of malaria"."

There you have it. My test, repeated by the dictionary. Further, this meaning establishes an objective test of facts- if it has differences it is a variant. Plain and simple. "Degree of variation" is of course subjective, but the binary "variant or not" is objective (unless you get a variant so far detached that it ceases to be a variant, and is its own Zoid. This is an argument that may be relevant to the wiki in some respects, but is not at all relevant for the purposes of overhauling the Releases sections).

In contrast, "release" has no readily applicable meaning. Looking it up in the dictionary will not help. for instance, google define offers (among others) "Allow (information) to be generally available" or "Make (a movie or recording) available for general viewing or purchase"- the term , "generally available" is of course highly subjective, as it necessarily involves questions of degree. This is VERY relevant when you have more than one country involved.

So, again, quite obviously, you can't throw out a definition of the word "release" and call it a day, because your definition is just that: your definition. Not the definition. On a related note: "Were the selling locations different?" does not solve the problem because I can simply say "define selling location" By country? By city? By shop? -and therein lies the problem. The important bit is that although you *can* answer the question, you cannot be right or wrong in your answer. Whereas for variant, there will be a clear right and wrong answer. Simply list the variations.

@ Leon: you answered your own question. -here's the bit people don't seem to get; if it doesn't have a name, why do we need to name it? Describing it works (most of the time). If we really *need* a naming system (and we do not) we could simply put a number after the Zoid's name, Blade Liger Rel#1, Blade Liger Rel#2, etc. It does not matter what we call it. What does matter is that our current numbering system simply does not work for wikia purposes. It may work in other sites and in other contexts, but not here. Slax01 (talk) 10:41, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think I get what you are saying. You seem to have a good grasp at the concept of what we should do.if it is not to much trouble, could you provide a visual example of what you think is good? perhaps copy a models secion from any Zoids article you feel apporpriete and then show what would change. What you are describing is not hard to understand, and things such as Blox and Hasbro won't be hard to implement, but because alot of this will be such a case by case type of problem, it would be nice to see how this new solution adapts to just one of our articles before we impliment it.Leon35 (talk) 15:53, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Can't do it; don't have the info. This is why Sylvan keeps saying. If I did have the info, the overhaul would have been finished long ago. But as a general idea: Blade Liger page- delete the current section, do some minor reformatting (because the current sections look messy) and start "The first release of the Blade Liger was produced by TOMY in 2000" Then describe it "The Zoid is coloured in blue, black, white and grey plastic with some parts painted with a white trim, and the claws, fangs and blades are coloured in a dull gold. This version of the Blade Liger includes a frame containing mini figures of the anime characters Van, Fiona and Zeke, with both the Van and Fiona figures being able to fit in the canopy at the same time. The canopy is coloured a clear yellowish-orange." Design inconsistencies can still be included, but the way it is written should be changed, overhaul or not. Custom parts can be included, but I think they should go into their own section at the end of the page, (such as "related pages" for ease of navigation, and so that information is not duplicated on the Blade Liger and CP pages). The we put a "Variants" heading and start a list going. Assuming the current page to be listed in any kind of logical order (which I very much doubt) list the limited and contest prize giveaways (-dropping the "NJR" prefix doesn't do anything detrimental to the article), then the Leon, replace "NJR" with "original". New American Release can be listed as whatever's on the box (which we don't have) Plus any identifiers as necessary ("hasbro" seems to work). Calling it American when it may have been released elsewhere is silly. Ditto Ditto Ditto, NER change to Eurpoean Re-release, TOMY re-release, or just plain re-release (EUROPEAN OR ENGLISH? -my god, why are people defending the current releases sections!). See- removing fan terms is very easy to achieve. Slax01 (talk) 22:06, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Slax first, I have already stated that definition of a term does not make a term more or less valid. Definition of a term does not make the use of the term more or less valid. Source of the definition does not change the state of a term used into data.

I could grab the definition of New, Japanese and Release so that it mimics your reasoning but that's not the point. Mimicing your reasoning would not make Release more or less valid. I could also nit pick how the use of varient changes at nearly every turn and how that makes it equivalent to a fan (editors are typically on equal footing as fans) term, but that's also not the point.

Release shouldn't be valid, I'm saying it seems easier to improve Releases than risk losing data or bloat the Zoid articles. Varient, in many (but not all) of the cases it is used should not be valid either but it has implemented to make the work of the wiki easier. Keeping both terms and refining them case-by-case has pitfalls but, based on the data provided (and non-data provided too), complete elimination of the terms has more risks than gains.

I don't see many gains to be had if more data was to be distributed to individual pages. Data distribution is already an issue. It simply looks like a greater problem would arise if more data was added to pages.

Sylvanelite, could we get an Academy page together?

The way the release pages are being refined looks pretty nice. I was just worried that 'anything on the box' meant the limiteds or Academy would be thrown into one big Tomy article because Tomy was logo on the box.

Regarding similar genre approaches, the look of the Beast Machines (Toyline) article from Transformers wiki could be one aspect to consider. There's also the way Bionicle wiki specified sets released and promotional items along with catching readers up with what was going on in the story at the time of release which could be nice if adapted for long releases with limiteds or the like. Looking at the NPR page now, the others in mind actually wouldn't flow. 68.4.85.85 00:41, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

One more thing to Slax, swearing at a diety about other editor's contributions is a bit offensive.

@ anon: 1- Where did I swear? 2- What was my point in my above posts? 3- How does your above post relate to this point? (This excludes your comment about data loss/bloat, because that has already been addressed)

I ask this because what you've written indicates that you haven't really grasped the main point I am making. As such, although your point has valid reasoning behind it, it doesn't oppose my reasons for the change.

I'll add this comment in the hope that it helps- How can we "improve" the releases pages when we don't have a definition of "release"? Is shorter or longer hair an "improvement"? - We can change the release page, but the change can be either for better or worse, depending on subjective view of the user. A list of variants, however, can be strictly improved or worsened since variant is objectively defined.

Again, please don't take this as hostility, many people do, but that is quite simply not true, I am simply trying to get the most out of the discussion. Slax01 (talk) 03:20, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

@Anon. Those wikis don't solve the problem here. The Bionicle wiki has a unique number on each and every release. If we had that, there would be no problem.

The transformers wiki appears to have worse layout than the Zoids Wiki. To get reasonable information, I had to follow 5 articles, with the 4th and 5th contradicting each other. They stated releases in 1993 and 1994 as being "more-or-less simultaneous", but 1995 was not? They also lack any way of finding regional information. Their articles are roughly on-par with the current (pre-overhaul) Zoids wiki.

As for Academy, the toy line article states the Korean release had stickers on the box. If I can find more information I'll make a page (in particular, I'm not likely to make a page until I can find an image). I won't be making overarching TOMY pages. Sylvanelite (talk) 08:10, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, as this is somewhat tricky to follow. I feel that deleting all references to releases will result in information loss. I also believe there is clear releases of zoids, although defining "release" can be tricky. Maybe "Product Line," which can be defined as "A group of products sharing a common, managed set of features that satisfy specific needs of a selected market or mission." That sounds more like what we're looking for. For example, Hasbro's line of zoids featured english boxes and some re-colors that fit with the New Century anime, since more Americans followed that. Which is different than the Japanses release of similar zoids.

Basically this means that if it was released in a different market, or just differently, it constitutes a separate model line, which I think is what we're looking for. Unfortunately this doesn't provide us with a convenient name for some of them (what's reffered to as OJR,NJR,NAR, etc.), although I'm not opposed to a "Hasbro 2001" format.--Azimuth727 15:08, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Academy makes it's own models. They aren't Tomy's from the 'NJR' they are simply packed in similar boxes.

http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Beast_Wars_(toyline) this is article I was talking about. It gets dates, features oddities and releates to other toylines. I can find the beast, let's say Jawbreaker, I'm looking for with ease and get some nice info about the whole line. Can't do that with say, Shadow Arms Lizard's line much less whatever line that Blox wolf-thing came from.

The G1 article is another nice-looking one that links right to the associated toys while stating the origin of the fan term. That's what I mean by 'look', I'm not saying take the exact format.

As for the Boinicle one, the designation number of a zoid can't work? It's the information about the story that I was thinking could be used, not a carbon-copy of their layout. I mean, which Zoids line does "Battle Story" apply to? Do multiple Japanese lines apply to the first section? What happens if we dissolve NJR and OJR all together? Would all Japanese versions of a Zoid be present at all times of the Story? Which pamphlets go to which line?

@ Slax "My god why are people defending the current release sections!" that's swearing to or at a diety. None of your contributions seem like hostility, maybe a little frustration from that last one. I don't often see many well-thought out posts that have unreasonable hostility anyhow.

From my understanding, your earlier posts want to avoid the percievable subjectivity of the fan-used terms. I want lines to be established with good data from official sources so I'm thinking we're pretty close to the same goal? But I don't want data that will make a flurry of stubs on thier own, or get washed out with the large Zoids. I realize release terms can do the same amount of washing out, like with Academy, but a managed and established fan-term seems to have more advantages if kept. It may not be valid data, but the information is helpful when more stable. (Mind, the use of the term Varient has changed more often than New Japanese Release, hence varient has no more validity unless documented data is stated by an official source showing the term is consistantly equated to same the term used by fandom/wiki editors. Definitions proving or disproving subjectivity only shows data about the term used.) It seems you want to do away with the terms entirely too.

But these terms are quite rooted in the fandom and they have been connected to multiple Zoids media. Using a fan term that has been clearly established to the point it is equated to multiple forms of media and connects data from various official sources is not a great stucture. However, given that the well-established term is recognized as fan-used/ non official and is used appropriately as a term, not fact, to aid the undersatnding or flow of actual data as a whole to fans, then it is feasable to keep the term (when under control) rather than eliminte it. Keeping well established fan-terms also gives the reader information about the fandom in the process. The larger Release terms, like OJR, OER and NJR would be terms that could stick around, so long as they are kept in check.

Much like the term G1 in Transformers. 68.4.85.85 16:57, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

@ Azimuth- "A group of products sharing a common, managed set of features that satisfy specific needs of a selected market or mission."- I don't feel this definition works, because it doesn't help with the problem of including or excluding sublines. For instance, it does not tell me if I should include CP's into the NJR. Besides, the info won't be deleted, it will just be shifted into category pages, and deleted from the official product lines pages (that is to say, in effect we will have two releases pages, one the actual page which has the official product lines, with the NJR, etc, existing as categories).

@anon- really? Well wherever you are from has a very different version of swearing than my language (I do mean that quite literally, we are very lax with our words here, I had in fact already toned it down from what I was going to write), so while I do respect your opinion, it won't change how I write, as quite simply I do not know what norms you are used to.

As for the thrust of your post- no, my point is that the current "Releases" have significant recurring flaws, which cannot be resolved because any attempt to do so results in wholesale changes to the definition which obliterates any value they previously had, and cannot be ignored, because they are fundamentally detrimental to the wiki.

In essence, the NJR relates to Zoids released in Japan. However, it contains no fixed (ie: not subjective) definition of the time period of these releases. That is to say, it can easily be defined to consume the BLOX, Neo-Blox, Genesis, or even HMM releases if it was so desired. Further, the releases pages are not actually sorted by region, as is quite obvious by the multitude of "also released in XYZ country" lines.

Given this, if we strip out all the actually named releases, and strip out references to regions (the former because the article should always prefer an official name to a fan name, and the latter because the data is simply incorrect or misleading, and therefore should not be on the wiki) the term NJR ceases to have much value.

Although the terms are rooted in fandom, with all due respect, I do not care. We cater to ALL Zoids fans, not just the two dozen or so that use Zoidspoison (and associated sites). Remember, the users on internet forums are the most visible. They are not the most numerous nor the most important. Heck I think we had a blog post yesterday illustrating exactly that.

Post cut short due to time, but I think that's the most of it. Slax01 (talk) 22:10, August 2, 2012 (UTC)